Published:
First published in full in Russian in the magazine Proletarskaya Revolutsia No. 7 (90), 1929.
First published (in abridged form) in La Vérité No. 48, January 27, 1918.
Written in the second half of December (old style) 1916.
Translated from the French.
Published according to La Vérité page proofs.
Source:Lenin
Collected Works,
Progress Publishers,
1964,
Moscow,
Volume 23,
pages 195-204.
Translated: M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and Others
Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive
2002
(2005).
You may freely copy, distribute,
display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
Archive” as your source.Other Formats:Text
• README

Citizen Souvarine says his letter is addressed also to
me. I take all the greater pleasure in replying, since his article touches
on vital problems of international socialism.

Souvarine believes that those who consider “defence of the
fatherland” to be incompatible with socialism are taking an
“unpatriotic” view. As for himself, he “defends” the view of Turati,
Ledebour, Brizon who, while voting against war credits, declare that they
accept “defence of the fatherland”; in other words, he defends the trend
known as the “Centre” (the “marsh”, I would say), or as
Kautskyism—after its chief theoretical and literary exponent, Karl
Kautsky. I might remark, in passing, that Souvarine is wrong in maintaining
that “they [i.e., the Russian comrades who speak of the collapse of the
Second International] equate men like Kautsky, Longuet, etc... with
nationalists of the Scheidemann and Renaudel type”. Neither I nor the
Party to which I belong (the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee) have ever
equated the social-chauvinist viewpoint with that of the “Centre”. In our
official Party statements, in the Central Committee manifesto published November 1,
1914,[1]
and in the resolutions adopted
in March
1915[2]
(both documents are reproduced in extenso in our pamphlet Socialism and
War, [3]
which is known to Souvarine), we have always drawn a dividing line between
the social-chauvinists and the “Centre”. The former, in our opinion, have
defected to the bourgeoisie. With regard to them we demand not merely
struggle, but a split. The latter hesitate, vacillate, and their efforts to
unite the socialist
masses with the chauvinist leaders cause the greatest damage to the
proletariat.

Souvarine says he wants to “examine the facts from a Marxist
viewpoint”.

But from a Marxist viewpoint, such general and abstract definitions as
“unpatriotic” are of absolutely no value. The fatherland, the nation are
historical categories. I am not at all opposed to wars waged in defence of
democracy or against national oppression, nor do I fear such words as
“defence of the fatherland” in reference to these wars or to
insurrections. Socialists always side with the oppressed and, consequently,
cannot be opposed to wars whose purpose is democratic or socialist struggle
against oppression. It would therefore be absurd to deny the legitimacy of
the wars of 1793, of France’s wars against the reactionary European
monarchies, or of the Garibaldi wars, etc.... And it would be just as
absurd not to recognise the legitimacy of wars of oppressed nations against
their oppressors, wars that might break out today—rebellion of the Irish
against England, for instance, rebellion of Morocco against France, or the
Ukraine against Russia, etc....

The Marxist viewpoint requires that in each individual case we define
the political content of the war.

Every war is only the continuation of policy. What kind of policy is
being continued in the present war? The policy of the proletariat, which
from 1871 to 1914 was the sole exponent of socialism and democracy in
France, England and Germany? Or imperialist policy, the policy of colonial
rapine and oppression of weak nations by the reactionary, decadent and
moribund bourgeoisie?

The question has only to be squarely put and we get a perfectly clear
answer: the present war is an imperialist war. It is a war of slave-owners
quarrelling over their chattels and eager to consolidate and perpetuate
slavery. It is the “capitalist brigandage” of which Jules Guesde spoke in
1899, thereby condemning in advance his own betrayal. Guesde said at the
time:

“There are other wars ... they arise every day, wars for
the acquisition of markets. This kind of war does not disappear, but, on
the contrary, bids fair to become continuous. It is chiefly a war between
the
capitalists of all countries for profits and possession of the world
market, and it is fought at the price of our blood. Now, just imagine that
in each of the capitalist countries of Europe, this mutual slaughter for
the sake of plunder is directed by a socialist! Just imagine an English
Millerand, an Italian Millerand, a German Millerand, in addition to a
French Millerand, working to embroil the proletarians in this capitalist
brigandage and make them fight each other! What would remain I ask you,
comrades, of international solidarity? On the day the Millerands became a
common phenomenon,we would have to say ‘farewell’ to all internationalism
and become nationalists, and this neither you nor I will ever agree to”
(Jules Guesde, En Garde!, Paris, 1911, pp. 175–76).

It is not true that France is waging this 1914–17 war for freedom,
national independence, democracy, and so on.... She is fighting to retain
her colonies, and for England to retain hers, colonies to which Germany
would have had a much greater right—from the standpoint of bourgeois law,
of course. She is fighting to give Russia Constantinople,
etc.... Consequently, this war is being waged not by democratic and
revolutionary France, not by the France of 1792, nor the France of 1848,
nor the France of the Commune. It is being waged by bourgeois France,
reactionary France, that ally and friend of tsarism, the “world usurer”
(the expression is not mine, it belongs to Lysis, a contributor to
l’Humanité[6]), who is defending his booty, his “sacred
right” to possess colonies, his “freedom” to exploit the entire world
with the help of the millions loaned to weaker or poorer nations.

Do not tell me it is hard to distinguish between revolutionary and
reactionary wars. You want me to indicate a purely practical criterion that
would be understood by all, in addition to the scientific criterion
indicated above?

Here it is: Every fair-sized war is prepared beforehand When a
revolutionary war is being prepared, democrats and socialists are not
afraid to state in advance that they favour “defence of the
fatherland” in this war. When however, in contrast, a reactionary war is
being prepared, no socialist will venture to state in advance,
before war is declared, that is, that he will favour “defence of the
fatherland”.

Marx and Engels were not afraid to urge the German people to fight
Russia in 1848 and 1859.

In contrast, at their Basle Congress in 1912 the socialistsdid not venture to speak of “defence of the fatherland”
in the war they could see was maturing and which broke out in
1914.

Our Party is not afraid to declare publicly that it will sympathise
with wars or uprisings which Ireland might start against England; Morocco,
Algeria and Tunisia against France; Tripoli against Italy; the Ukraine,
Persia, China against Russia, etc.

But what of the social-chauvinists? And the “Centrists”? Will they
have the courage openly and officially to state that they favour, or will
favour, “defence of the fatherland” in the event of war breaking out
between, say, Japan and the United States, a clearly imperialist war
prepared over the course of many years, and one which would imperil many
hundreds of millions of people? I dare them! I am prepared to wager that
they will not, for they know only too well that if they make such a
statement, they will become a laughing stock in the eyes of the workers,
they will be jeered at and driven out of the socialist parties. That is why
the social-chauvinists and those in the “Centre” will avoid any open
statement and will continue to wriggle, lie and confuse the issue, seeking
refuge in all manner of sophisms, like this one in the resolution of the
last, 1915 French party congress: “An attacked country has the right to
defence.”

As if the question were: Who was the first to attack, and not:
What are the causes of the war? What are its aims? Which classes are
waging it? Could one imagine, for example, a sane-minded socialist
recognising England’s right to “defence of the fatherland” in 1796, when
the French revolutionary troops began to fraternise with the Irish? And yet
it was the French who had attacked England and were actually preparing to
land in Ireland. And could we, tomorrow, recognise the right to “defence
of the fatherland” for Russia and England, if, after they had been taught
a lesson by Germany, they were attacked by Persia in alliance with India,
China and other revolutionary nations of Asia per forming their 1789 and
1793?

That is my reply to the really ludicrous charge that we share Tolstoy’s
views. Our Party has rejected both the Tolstoy doctrine and pacifism,
declaring that socialists must seek to transform the present war into a
civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, for socialism.

Should you object that this is utopian, I will answer that the
bourgeoisie of France, England, etc., do not, apparently, subscribe to that
opinion. They would not play so vile and ridiculous a role, going to the
length of jailing or conscripting “pacifists”, had they not felt and
foreseen the inevitable and steady rise of revolution and its early
approach.

This leads me to the question of a split, raised also by Souvarine. A
split! That is the bogy with which the socialist, leaders are trying to
frighten others, and which they themselves fear so much! “What useful
purpose could now be served by the foundation of a new
International?”—Souvarine asks. “Its activity would be blighted by
sterility, for numerically it would be very weak.”

But the day-to-day facts show that, precisely because they are
afraid of a split, the “activity” of Pressemane and Longuet in
France, Kautsky and Ledebour in Germany, is blighted by sterility! And
precisely because Karl Liebknecht and Otto Rühle in Germany were not
afraid of a split, openly declaring that a split was necessary
(cf. Rühle’s letter in Vorwärts, January 12, 1916), and did
not hesitate to carry it out—their activity is of vast importance for the
proletariat, despite their numerical weakness. Liebknecht and
Rühle are only two against 108. But these two represent millions, the
exploited mass, the overwhelming majority of the population, the future of
mankind, the revolution that is mounting and maturing with every passing
day. The 108, on the other hand, represent only the servile spirit of a
handful of bourgeois flunkies within the proletariat. Brizon’s activities,
when he shares the weaknesses of the Centre or the marsh, are blighted by
sterility. And, conversely, they cease to be sterile, help to awaken,
organise and stimulate the proletariat, when Brizon really demolishes
“unity”, when he courageously proclaims in parliament “Down with the
war!”, or when he publicly speaks the truth, declaring that the Allies are
fighting to give Russia Constantinople.

The genuine revolutionary internationalists are numeric ally weak?
Nonsense! Take France in 1780, or Russia in 1900. The politically-conscious
and determined revolutionaries, who in France represented the
bourgeoisie—the revolutionary class of that era—and in Russia today’s
revolutionary class—the proletariat, were extremely weak
numerically. They were only a few, comprising at the most only 110,000, or
even 1/100,000, of their class. Several years later, however, these few,
this allegedly negligible minority, led the masses, millions and tens of
millions of people. Why? Because this minority really represented the
interests of these masses, because it believed in the coming revolution,
because it was prepared to serve it with supreme devotion.

Numerical weakness? But since when have revolutionaries made their
policies dependent on whether they are in a majority or minority? In
November 1914, when our Party
called for a split with the
opportunists,[4]
declaring that the split was the only correct and fitting reply to their
betrayal in August 1914, to many that seemed to be a piece of insensate
sectarianism coming from men who had completely lost all contact with real
life. Two years have passed, and what is happening? In England, the split
is an accomplished fact. The social-chauvinist Hyndman has been forced to
leave the party. In Germany, a split is developing before everyone’s
eyes. The Berlin, Bremen and Stuttgart organisations have even been
accorded the honour of being expelled from the party ... from the party of
the Kaiser’s lackeys, the party of the German Renaudels, Sembats, Thomases,
Guesdes and Co. And in France? On the one hand, the party of these
gentlemen states that it remains true to “fatherland defence”. On the
other, the Zimmerwaldists state, in their pamphlet The Zimmerwald
Socialists and the War, that “defence of the fatherland” is
unsocialist. Isn’t this a split?

And how can men who, after two years of this greatest world crisis,
give diametrically opposite answers to the supreme question of modern
proletarian tactics, work faith fully side by side, within one and the same
party?

Look at America—apart from everything else a neutral country. Haven’t
we the beginnings of a split there, too: Eugene Debs, the “American
Bebel”, declares in the socialist press that he recognises only one type
of war, civil war for the victory of socialism, and that he would sooner be
shot than vote a single cent for American war expenditure (see Appeal
to
Reason[7] No. 1032, September 11, 1915). On the
other hand, the American Renaudels and Sembats advocate “national
defence” and “preparedness”. The American Louguets and Pressemanes—the
poor souls!—are trying to bring about a reconciliation between
social-chauvinists and revolutionary internationalists.

Two Internationals already exist. One is the International of
Sembat-Südekum-Hyndman-Plekhanov and Co. The other is the International
of Karl Liebknecht, MacLean (the Scottish school-master whom the English
bourgeoisie sentenced to hard labour for supporting the workers’ class
struggle), Höglund (the Swedish M. P. and one of the founders of the
Zimmerwald Left sentenced to hard labour for his revolutionary propaganda
against the war), the five Duma members exiled to Siberia for life for
their propaganda against the war, etc. On the one hand, there is the
International of those who are helping their own governments wage the
imperialist war, and on the other, the International of those who
are waging a revolutionary fight against the imperialist war. Neither
parliamentary eloquence nor the “diplomacy” of socialist “statesmen”
can unite these two Internationals. The Second International has outlived
itself. The Third International has already been born. And if it has not
yet been baptised by the high priests and Popes of the Second International
but, on the contrary, has been anathemised (see Vandervelde’s and
Stauning’s speeches), this is not preventing it from gaining strength with
every passing day. The Third International will enable the proletariat to
rid itself of opportunists and will lead the masses to victory in the
maturing and approaching social revolution.

Before concluding, I would like to say a few words in reply to
Souvarine’s personal polemics. He asks (the socialists now residing in
Switzerland) to moderate their personal criticism of Bernstein, Kautsky,
Longuet, etc.... For my part, I must say that I cannot accept that. And I
would point out to Souvarine, first of all, that my criticism of the
“Centre” is political, not personal. Nothing can restore the mass
influence of the Südekums, Plekhanovs, etc.: their authority has been so
undermined that everywhere the police have to protect them. But by their
propaganda of “unity” and “fatherland defence”, by their striving to
bring about a compromise, by their efforts to draw a verbal veil over
the deep-seated differences, the “Centrists” are causing the greatest
damage to the labour movement, because they are impeding the final
break-down of the social-chauvinists’ moral authority, and in that way are
bolstering their influence on the masses and galvanising the corpse of the
opportunist Second International. For all these reasons I consider it my
socialist duty to fight Kautsky and other “Centre” spokesmen.

Souvarine “appeals”, among others, to “Guilbeaux, to Lenin, to all
those who enjoy the advantage of being ‘outside the battle’, an advantage
that often enables one to take a reasonable view of men and affairs-in
socialism, but one that, perhaps, is fraught also with certain
inconveniences.”

A transparent hint. In Zimmerwald, Ledebour expressed the same thought
without any ambiguity. He accused us “Left Zimmerwaldists” of addressing
revolutionary appeals to the masses from abroad. I repeat to Citizen
Souvarine what I told Ledebour in Zimmerwald. It is 29 years since I was
arrested in Russia. And throughout these 29 years I have never ceased to
address revolutionary appeals to the masses. I did so from prison, from
Siberia, and later from abroad. And I frequently met in the revolutionary
press “hints” similar to those made in the speeches of tsarist
prosecutors—“hints” that I was lacking in honesty, because, while
living abroad, I addressed revolutionary appeals to the Russian
people. Coming from tsarist prosecutors these “hints” surprise no
one. But I must admit that I expected arguments of another kind from
Ledebour. Apparently he has forgotten that when they wrote their famous
Communist Manifesto in 1847, Marx and Engels likewise addressed
revolutionary appeals to the German workers from abroad! The revolutionary
struggle is often impossible without revolutionaries emigrating
abroad. That has repeatedly been the experience in France. And Citizen
Souvarine would have done better not to follow the bad example of Ledebour
and ... the tsarist prosecutors.

Souvarine also says that Trotsky, “whom we [the French minority]
consider one of the most extreme elements of the extreme Left in the
International, is simply branded as a chauvinist by Lenin. It has to be
admitted that there is a certain exaggeration here”.

Yes, of course, “there is a certain exaggeration”, but on Souvarine’s
part, not mine. For I have never branded Trotsky’s position as
chauvinistic. What I have reproached him with is that all too often he has
represented the “Centre” policy in Russia. Here are the facts. The split
in the R.S.D.L.P. has existed officially since
January 1912.[8] Our Party (grouped around the Central Committee)
accused of opportunism the other group, the Organising Committee, of which
Martov and Axelrod are the most prominent leaders. Trotsky belonged to
Martov’s party and left it only in 1914. By that time the war had
started. Our five Duma deputies (Muranov, Petrovsky, Shagov, Badayev and
Samoilov) were exiled to Siberia. In Petrograd, our workers voted
against participation in the war industries committees (the most
important practical issue for us, just as important in Russia as the
question of participation in the government in France). On the other hand,
the most prominent and most influential Organising Committee
writers—Potresov, Zasulich, Levitsky and others—have come out for
“defence of the fatherland” and participation in the war industries
committees. Martov and Axelrod have protested and advocated
non-participation in the committees. But they have not broken with their
party, one faction of which has turned chauvinist and accepts
participation. That is why at Kienthal we reproached Martov with having
wanted to represent the Organising Committee as a whole, whereas in fact he
can represent only one of its two factions. This party’s Duma group
(Chkheidze, Skobelev and others) is divided, with some of its members for
and others against “fatherland defence”. But all of them favour
participation in the war industries committees, resorting to the ambiguous
formula of “saving the country”, which, essentially, is but another
wording of the Südekum and Renaudel “fatherland defence” slogan. More,
they have in no way protested against Potresov’s position (which is
actually identical to Plekhanov’s; Martov publicly protested against
Potresov and declined to contribute to his journal because Plekhanov had
been invited to contribute).

And Trotsky? Having broken with Martov’s party, he continues to accuse
us of being splitters. Little by little he is moving to the Left, and even
calls for a break with
the Russian social-chauvinist leaders. But he has not definitely said
whether he wants unity or a break with the Chkheidze faction. And that is
one of the key issues. For, indeed, if peace comes tomorrow, we shall be
having Duma elections the day after tomorrow, and the question will
immediately arise of siding with or opposing Chkheidze. We oppose such an
alliance. Martov favours it. And Trotsky? His attitude is unknown. There
has been no definite indication of it in the 500 issues of the Paris
Russian-language newspaper Nashe Slovo, of which Trotsky is one of
the editors. These are the reasons why we do not agree with Trotsky.

We are not the only ones. In Zimmerwald, Trotsky re fused to join the
Zimmerwald Left. Together with Comrade Henriette Roland-Hoist he
represented the “Centre”. And this is what Comrade Roland-Hoist now
writes in the Dutch socialist paper
Tribune[9] No. 159, August 23, 1916):
“Those who, like Trotsky and his group, want to wage a revolutionary
struggle against imperialism must overcome the consequences of émigré
differences—largely of a personal nature—which disunite the extreme
Left, and join the Leninists. A ‘revolutionary centre’ is impossible.”

I must apologise for having dwelt at such length on our relations with
Trotsky and Martov, but the French socialist press refers to this quite
frequently and the information it gives its readers is often very
inaccurate. The French comrades must be better informed of the facts
concerning the Social-Democratic movement in Russia.

Lenin

Notes

[5]This article was written in reply to an open letter by Boris Souvarine, the
French Centrist, “A nos amis qui sont en Suisse” (“To Our Friends in
Switzerland”), published in Le Populaire du Centre. December 10,
1916.

Lenin sent the article to Souvarine who in January 1918 turned it over
to the socialist La Vérité for publication, together with his
preface. The article was to have appeared on January 24, in No. 45 of the
gaper, but was banned by the censor. La Vérité came out with a
blank space, over which was the heading “Un document inédit. Une lettre
de Lénine” (“Unpublished document. A Letter from Lenin”) with the
signature “Lénine”. Three days later, on January 27, La
Vérité published the article, with many cuts and with its own
subheadings, in No. 48. The full text was published in the magazine
Proletarskaya Revolutsia (Proletarian Revolution) No. 7, 1929 from
the La Vérité galleys.

[6]l’Humanité—daily French socialist newspaper founded in 1904 by
Jean Jaurès. During the First World War was controlled by the socialist
Right wing and followed a chauvinist policy.

In 1918 Marcel Cachin, an outstanding leader of the French and
international workers’ movement, became its political editor. In 1918–20
l’Humanité campaigned against the French Government’s
imperialist policy of armed intervention in Soviet Russia. In December
1920, following the split in the Socialist Party and the founding of the
Communist Party, l’Humanité became the Communist Central Organ.

[7]Appeal to Reason—a newspaper published by the American
socialists; founded in Girard, Kansas, in 1895. Had no official connections
with the U.S. Socialist Party but propagated socialist ideas and enjoyed
wide popularity among the workers. Took up an internationalist position in
the First World War.

Lenin’s reference is to Eugene Debs’ article “When I Shall Fight”, in
the issue of September 11, 1915 (No. 1032).

[8]In January 1912 the Mensheviks were expelled from the Party by decision of
the Sixth (Prague) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

The Sixth All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. met from
January 5 to January 17 (18–30), 1912 in Prague and actually assumed the
character of a Party congress.

Lenin was the leading figure at the Conference. He delivered the
reports on the current situation and the tasks of the Party, the work of
the International Socialist Bureau, and took part in the discussions. He
also drafted the resolutions on all major agenda items.

The Conference resolutions on “Liquidationism and the Group of
Liquidators” and on “The Party Organisation Abroad” were of tremendous
theoretical and practical significance. The Conference declared that by
their conduct the liquidators had definitely placed themselves outside the
Party and expelled them from the R.S.D.L.P. The Conference condemned the
activities of the anti-Party groups abroad—the Menshevik Golos
group, the Vperyod and Trotsky groups, and recognised the absolute
necessity for a single Party organisation abroad, conducting its work under
the supervision and guidance of the C.C., and pointed out that Party groups
abroad “which refuse to submit to the Russian centre of Social-Democratic
activity, i.e., to the Central Committee, and which cause disorganisation
by communicating with Russia independently and ignoring the Central
Committee, have no right to use the name of the R.S.D.L.P.”. The
Conference adopted a resolution on “The Character and Organisational Forms
of Party Work”, approved Lenin’s draft Organisational Rules, made the
newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat the Party Central Organ, elected a
Party Central Committee and set up the Bureau of the C.C. in Russia.

The Prague Conference played an outstanding part in building the
Bolshevik Party, a party of a new type, and in strengthening its unity. It
summed up a whole historical period of struggle against the Mensheviks,
consolidated the victory of the Bolsheviks and expelled the Menshevik
liquidators from the Party. Local Party organisations rallied still closer
round the Party on the basis of the Conference decisions. The Conference
strengthened the Party as an all-Russian organisation and defined its
political line and tactics in the conditions of the new revolutionary
upsurge. The Prague Conference was of great international significance. It
showed the revolutionary elements of the parties of the Second
International how to conduct a decisive struggle against opportunism by
carrying the fight to a complete organisational break with the
opportunists.

[9]De Tribune—organ of the Left wing of the Social-Democratic
Labour Party of Holland. Founded in 1907 by A. Pannekoek, H. Gorter,
D. Wijnkoop and Henriette Roland-Holst. In 1909, following the expulsion of
the Left wing, became the official organ of the new, Social-Democratic
Party, and in 1918 of the Dutch Communist Party. It appeared under this
name until 1940.